BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

4 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 269Tclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune24Hyderabad11Mumbai9Kolkata9Ahmedabad9Visakhapatnam9Delhi7Cochin6Chennai4Lucknow4Rajkot4Chandigarh3Surat3Bangalore3Indore2Amritsar2Jaipur2Nagpur1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 271D10Section 269S10Section 271E8Section 269T7Penalty4Section 2512Condonation of Delay2

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. DR. GANESAN'S HITECH DIAGNOSTICS CENTRE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3294/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3294/Mds/2016, 1761/Mds/2017 & 1762/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs M/S. Dr.Ganesan’S Hitech The Deputy Commissioner Of Diagnostics Centre P Ltd., Income Tax, No.1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai – 600 010. Chennai – 34. Pan: Aadcd7458H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Deepa, CAFor Respondent: 20.09.2017
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

condoning the delay, appeal in ITA No.3294 of 2016 has become infructuous and accordingly it is dismissed. ITA No.1761 & 1762/Mds/2017 3. (i) ITA No. 1761 of 2017 for the assessment year 2012-13: The Revenue has raised three elaborate grounds in its appeal, however the crux of the issue is that “the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty

NOORDEEN AHMED AMINA ,SALEM vs. ITO , NFAC , DELHI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1118/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1118/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Noordeen Ahmed Amina Ito बनाम/ 18/27, Ranga Nagar, Suramangalam, Nfac Vs. Salem-636 005. New Delhi. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Bxepa-3157-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V.Lakshmi(Advocate)- Ld Ar "#थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D.Hema Bhupal (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271D For Rs.5 Lacs For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 26-09-2022 In The Matter Of Impugned Penalty Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 271D Of The Act Vide Order Dated 22-02-2022. In The Penalty Order, The Penalty Has Been Levied On The Finding That The Assessee Has Received Rs.5 Lacs In Cash On Sale Of Immovable Property

For Appellant: Ms. N.V.Lakshmi(Advocate)- Ld ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

delay is condoned and we proceed to dispose-off the appeal on merits. 3. The undisputed facts are that the assessee sold certain property for Rs.50 Lacs. The consideration of Rs.45 Lacs was received by cheque whereas the balance consideration of Rs.5 Lacs was received in cash. Noticing the violation of the provisions of Sec.269SS, Ld. AO invoked penalty provisions

K.N.S. TRANSPORTS,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAMAKKAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1972/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1972/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 251Section 269TSection 271ESection 279T

delay is condoned accordingly. 3. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of lorry transport. The JCIT, Namakkal Range, Namakkal has levied penalty of Rs. 19,83,610/- for violation of provisions of Section 269T

CHIRANJJEEVI WIND ENERGY LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1857/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1857/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chiranjjeevi Wind Energy Limited, The Assistant Commissioner 26A, Kamaraj Road, Vs. Of Income Tax, Mahalingapuram, Corporate Circle -1, Pollachi, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 642 002. Pan: Aaacc 8761H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 22.04.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Assessee & Also Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That There Is A Reasonable Cause For The Assessee In Not Filing Appeal On Or Before The Due Date Prescribed Under The Law & Thus, In The Interests Of Justice, We Condone Delay In Filing Of Appeal & Admit Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 269SSection 271D

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order issued u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. Commissioner